Saturday 9 March 2024
John 8:58 demystified.
A certain group of Judean Jews had decided to kill Jesus. They said to Jesus,
(8:53) " 'Surely you are not greater than our father Abraham, who died?' ... (:54) Jesus answered, 'If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, "He is our God"; (:55) and you have not come to know him, but I know him; and if I say that I do not know him I shall be a liar like you, but I do know him, and keep his word. (:56) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it and was glad.' (:57) The Jews therefore said to him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' (:58) Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.' (:59) Therefore they picked up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple." - John 8:53-59 New American Standard Bible (NASB).
Some trinitarians claim that Jesus was declaring himself to be Jehovah God because he said "I AM" (ego eimi [eyw eimi] in the original NT Greek) at John 8:58.
Their reasoning goes like this: Exodus 3:14 in some English Bible translations has Jehovah God revealing himself as "I AM WHO I AM" and "I AM." So, they say, Jesus' statement at John 8:58 shows him revealing himself by the same exclusive title (name? description?) as Jehovah ("I AM" at Exodus 3:14) and, therefore, he is Jehovah God!
Furthermore, some of these trinitarians say, the Jews understood perfectly that Jesus was claiming to be Jehovah when he used those two words because they immediately took up stones to kill him. [1]
But these Jews of Judea had already decided beforehand to kill Jesus! (John 7:1, 25) They needed no further incentives. Nothing that Jesus said or did at this point would have made any difference to them.
If the Jews had really understood the phrase "I AM" (ego eimi) to mean the speaker was claiming to be Jehovah and that they should therefore kill him, they would have immediately stoned Jesus at John 8:24 or :28. (The actual Greek in the ancient Bible manuscripts is identical to John 8:58, ego eimi, but many English Bible translations properly add "he" so that it can be understood as "I am he" in English.)
We know that even his disciples didn't believe Jesus was God simply because he said ego eimi, for he identified himself to them with these same words at John 6:20 (usually rendered into English as "It is I"), and their reaction was certainly not that of those who had come into the presence of God! - Cf. the parallel Matt. 14:27.
Before we examine this "proof" in detail, we should understand that the name "Jehovah" in English (or "Yahweh" in one suggested Hebrew form) is the only personal name of God (see Ex. 3:15 and Ps. 83:18). This name is declared by God to be his very own name thousands of times in the Bible (see #3068 in Strong's Concordance or the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance, or Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, or many others). Being a personal name (like "Jesus," "John," "Mary," etc.) this name belongs to a single individual. This single person who is God is not the Holy Spirit. He is not the Son of God. He is the Father alone! (Is. 63:16; Is. 64:8, ASV; Deut. 32:6, ASV; Ps. 89:26, 27 [cf. Heb. 1:5 and Ps. 2:7, ASV].)
He is never called "the Son," "the Firstborn," "Only-begotten," "High Priest of God," the "Messiah" or "Christ" as Jesus is.
It is obvious that the one person with the personal name of Jehovah cannot be the Messiah (who has the personal name "Jesus"). Merely study the following scriptures (preferably in a Bible that honestly translates God's personal name as "Jehovah" [ASV, NWT, KJIIV, Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, and Byington's The Bible in Living English] or "Yahweh" [Jerusalem Bible, NJB, and Rotherham's The Emphasized Bible] in all the 6900 places it's found in the original manuscripts instead of the mistranslated "LORD" found in nearly 7000 places in many translations).
These are some of the scriptures which show the relationship of Jehovah to the Messiah: Psalm 110:1 (compare Acts 2:33-36 and Eph. 1:17, 20); Micah 5:4; Psalm 2:1, 2 (compare Acts 4:25-27); Psalm 2:7 (compare Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5); Is. 53:10 (all Christian organizations recognize that all of Is. 53 refers to the Messiah). These all clearly show that Jesus is not Jehovah.
Let's examine, then, the "I AM" (ego eimi) "evidence" which trinitarians say somehow disproves this often-repeated, clearly-taught scriptural knowledge of the only true God and of Jesus Christ (John 17:3).
The words ego eimi formed a phrase that was in very common use by first century Christians and Jews and in New Testament scriptures. It was certainly not understood (by Jews or Christians) as declaring one's Godhood! If it could have been understood that way, we can be sure the Jews would have never applied it to themselves (as they did so frequently)!
Notice, for example, how the former blind man (John 9:9) actually identifies himself by saying "ego eimi," but none of the other Jews present, even for a moment, understood him to be claiming to be Jehovah!
And Jesus earlier ( in John 6:20 mentioned above) clearly identified himself by saying to his frightened disciples: ego eimi. None of his disciples considered that to mean that Jesus was claiming to be God. In fact, most trinitarian-translated Bibles render Jesus’ words identifying himself here as “It is I.” E.g., ASV; AMP; CJB; DARBY; DRA; ESV; GNT; GNV; HCSB; ISV; JB; KJV; KJ21; TLB; MEV; MLB; MOUNCE; NAB; NASB; NCV; NEB; NET; NIV; NKJV; NLV; NRSV; REB; RSV; WEB; and WE.
It is simply impossible that the Jews would say Jesus was claiming to be the Almighty God. It is virtually certain, instead, that one of three things was meant by the phrase "before Abraham came into being ego eimi" spoken by Jesus at John 8:58:
(1) "Even before Abraham was born, I was (the Christ)."
(2) "I existed before Abraham was born."("I was"; "I existed"; "I have been")
(3) "I came into existence before Abraham was even born."
This paper will examine why Jn 8:58 cannot mean "I am God" or its equivalent and why one of the three other interpretations listed above must be what was originally intended.
Why Stones?
As for the charge that the Jews were going to stone him because he claimed to be God, we should be aware that the Jews stoned people for many offenses. For example, a person pretending to be a "wizard" was to be stoned to death according to the Law (Lev. 20:27 - KJV, RSV, ASV, LB). Today's Dictionary of the Bible, 1982 ed., tells us:
"Wizard, a pretender to supernatural knowledge and power .... such a one was forbidden on pain of death to practice his deceptions ... Lev. 20:26, 27." - p. 654.
We also know that some of the Jews wanted Jesus killed for blasphemy because he admitted to being the Messiah (Christ) - see Matt 26:59-68 and footnotes for Matt 26:65 and Luke 22:71 in The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan Publ., 1985.
"But powerful forces in the Jewish congregation, jealous of his popularity, incensed by his denunciation of some of them, and bitterly critical of his disregard for formalism, his willingness to violate some of the minor laws of the Jews, and his heretical claim that he was the Son of God, repudiated him, conspired to kill him, saw him crucified, and after his death, persecuted his followers." - The Portable World Bible, Viking Press, p. 230.
It was even forbidden for others to say that Jesus was the Messiah - John 9:22. And, in fact, that was obviously why Stephen was stoned to death.
At Acts 7:55-58, Stephen looked up into heaven "and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and he said, 'Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of man [synonymous with the Messiah, not God] standing at the right hand of God.' But they [the Jews] ... cast him out of the city, and stoned him." - RSV.
Stephen was stoned, not because he claimed to be God, nor because he claimed Jesus was God (quite the contrary, in fact, as his quoted statement clearly shows: Jesus "standing at the right hand of God") but because he was proclaiming Jesus to be the Messiah (Christ)! See The NIV Study Bible footnotes for Acts 7:56 and Mk 8:31.
The New American Bible, St. Joseph edition, tells us in a footnote for Acts 7:55 -
"Stephen affirms to the Sanhedrin that the prophecy Jesus made before them has been fulfilled (Mk 14:62)."
And Mk 14:61-64 shows Jesus declaring he is the Christ and that the Jews will see him (the son of man) at the right hand of God. This "blasphemy" of claiming to be the Messiah (whom the Jews never considered to be God) caused the Jews to condemn Jesus to death - see footnotes for Mk 14:61, 63 in The NIV Study Bible.[2]
The trinitarian The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible also tells us about the Messiah expected by the Jews at this time:
"The figure of the 'Son of Man' ... was, moreover, in accord with ... that of a pre-existent, heavenly angelic being who, at the end time, will appear at the side of God as judge of the world." - p. 364, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, 1962.
Therefore, when Jesus claimed, at John 8:58, to have lived long before his first century human existence, the Jews could have perceived him as a false prophet, or a self-proclaimed "wizard," or, more likely, as one claiming to be the Christ or Messiah (the Son of Man) and tried to stone him because of that.
"I Was the Christ"
The Gospel writers have clearly shown Jesus applying the term ego eimi to himself and meaning "I am the Christ." Mark 13:6 shows Jesus saying, "I am he [literally just ego eimi alone, 'I AM']" - NEB. The parallel account at Luke 21:8 agrees. But the other parallel account by Matthew shows what Jesus actually meant by the "absolute" ego eimi in those parallel accounts of Mark and Luke: "I am the Messiah" - Matt. 24:5 - NEB.
So we see Jesus using the "absolute" ego eimi at Mark 13:6 and Luke 21:8 (see any interlinear). And Matthew explains that Jesus means "I am the Messiah"! Also see John 8:24, Living Bible - "I am the Messiah," C. B. Williams - "I am the Christ," and see Jn 4:26; 13:19 (esp. Living Bible, and translations by C. B. Williams and Phillips.) Notice how Jesus admitted to being the Messiah when the Jews decided to kill him: "'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' 'I AM [ego eimi],' said Jesus." - Mark 14:61-62. Again the 'absolute' ego eimi ("I am") as used by Jesus means "I am the Christ" and spurs the Jews to condemn him to die!
In fact, even some trinitarian scholars have admitted that they believe that Jesus' statements at John 8:56 and 8:58 are statements proclaiming himself to be the Messiah. Trinitarian scholar William Barclay admits in his popular Daily Study Bible Series:
"So when Jesus said that Abraham had seen his day, he was making a deliberate claim that he was the Messiah. He was really saying 'I am the Messiah Abraham saw in his vision.' " - p. 35, The Gospel of John, Vol. 2, 1975, The Westminster Press. (Cf. footnote for Jn 8:56 in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973 ed., Oxford University Press.)
The footnote for John 8:58 in the very trinitarian Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version says:
"...it can also mean 'I am he (the Christ).' " - World Bible Translation Center, 1992.
And famous trinitarian scholar Robert Young (Young's Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible) in explaining John 8:58 tells us that Jesus was proclaiming himself by these words (ego eimi) to be "the promised Messiah." - Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, p. 61, 1977 ed., Baker Book House.
When we really analyze the "parallel" (according to some trinitarians) uses of ego eimi by Jesus found in the Gospel of John "which culminate in the 'I Am' of John 8:58," we find they all (and we should start with the very first such instance at Jn 4:26) show Jesus' identity (as "Jesus" or "the Christ")! If these are really "parallel" uses of ego eimi by Jesus, as many trinitarians insist, then 8:58 should be understood as "I am [or 'have been'] the Christ"!
[The phrase "I, I am" {ego eimi} occurs many other times in the New Testament, and; is often translated as "I am he" or some equivalent ("I am he" in Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6, 8; "it is I" in Matt 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20 and; "I am the one I claim to be" in John 8:24, 28.).
It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, but it is interesting that the phrase is translated as "I am," ONLY once i.e. in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated "I am he" or "I am the one" (like all the others), it would be easier to see that Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament. - From a post by alanwcorrie on 'TrinityQuestion'.]
Surely if even the highly trinitarian scholars who translated the Living Bible and CBW can interpret the "absolute" ego eimi at John 8:24 as "I am the Messiah (Christ)" - cf. 8:28, LB, CBW, then it would not only be proper but maybe even probable that it should be so translated again at John 8:58: "Even before Abraham was born, I am the Messiah. Therefore [since he claimed to be the Messiah] they picked up stones to throw at him."
Capitalization
Even most trinitarian Bible translations deny any connection between God's statement at Exodus 3:14 and Jesus' reply to the Jews at John 8:58. They do this through the modern English usage of capitalizing personal names and exclusive titles. For example, "Word" at Jn 1:14; "Lamb" at Jn 1:36 and Rev 5:8; and "Son" at Jn 8:36.
Nearly all the trinitarian Bible translations (24) that I have checked have capitalized the words in question at Ex. 3:14 ("I AM;" or "I Will Be;" or "I Will Become;" etc.) to show their interpretation that this is a title or name of God. However, most of those same translations do not capitalize the words in question at John 8:58 ("I am;" "I was;" or "I have existed;" etc.): KJV; Douay Version; RSV; NRSV; ASV; NIV; NEB; REB; MLB; LB; NLV; The New Testament in the Language of the People (CBW); Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible; Rotherham; Beck; and Byington.
Therefore, the vast majority of trinitarian-translated Bibles obviously show Ex. 3:14 as giving a title or name for God (as properly indicated by the use of capitalization in English), but they do not show the same understanding for John 8:58 (nor Isaiah's uses of "I am" by God [3])! All those trinitarian scholars above, therefore, are saying (by not capitalizing "am") at Jn 8:58 that Jesus did not claim the same name or exclusive title that God used at Ex. 3:14.
Even though Bible text compilers add the punctuation and capitalization that they personally prefer, the basic Greek texts as compiled by trinitarians Westcott and Hort, and the trinitarian United Bible Societies, the Nestle text, and even the Received Text by the Trinitarian Bible Society (1976) do not capitalize ego eimi at John 8:58 ! (As compared to the capitalized "Alpha and Omega" title at Rev. 1:8, for example.)
Cross-References in Trinitarian Reference Bibles
Some trinitarian editors and publishers of trinitarian Bibles have added cross-references to the original translations. That is, they have superscripts and notes which refer one scripture to one or more other scriptures. The reference may indicate an actual quote from the OT found in the NT. Or it can indicate a similar meaning, event, or even just similar wording found in other scriptures. For example, in the New American Standard Bible (NASB), Reference Edition, Foundation Press, 1975, the trinitarian NT editors chose John 1:1; 17:5, 24 as all the references for John 8:58. Not one reference to Ex. 3:14 or Isaiah or any other OT scripture where God says "I am"! Obviously these trinitarian scholars did not accept the extremely poor "I AM" evidence! (The trinitarian OT editors, however, did choose this approach at Ex. 3:14.) And the very trinitarian Revised Standard Version, American Bible Society, 1971 ed. also has only Jn 1:1; 17:5, 24 as references for John 8:58! (In this case the trinitarian OT editors also did not refer Ex. 3:14 or verses in Isaiah, etc. to Jn 8:58!) These trinitarian scholars, therefore, did not accept the "I AM" argument as valid!
Other Translations
Some of those trinitarian translators go even further than merely not capitalizing at John 8:58 and further clarify the probable meaning in English and thereby refute the deceptive "I AM" interpretation of a few trinitarians.
These translations (most by trinitarians) render ego eimi at John 8:58 as:
(1) “I HAVE BEEN”[4] - alternate reading in 1960 thru 1973 reference editions of NASB
(2) “I HAVE BEEN” - The New Testament, G. R. Noyes
(3) “I HAVE BEEN” - “The Four Gospels” According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest, A. S. Lewis
(4) “I HAVE ALREADY BEEN” - The Unvarnished New Testament
(5) “I HAVE EXISTED” - The Bible, A New Translation, Dr. James Moffatt
(6) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 ed., Beck
(7) “I EXISTED” - An American Translation, Goodspeed
(8) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams
(9) “I EXISTED” - New Simplified Bible
(10) “I WAS IN EXISTENCE” - Living Bible
(11) “I WAS ALIVE” - The Simple English Bible
(12)“I WAS” - Holy Bible - From the Ancient Eastern Text, Lamsa
(13)“I WAS” - Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1st ed. (Also see Young’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 61 of “The New Covenant.”).
(14) “I WAS” - The Syriac New Testament, Jas. Murdock
(15) “I WAS” - H. T. Anderson
(16) “I WAS” - Twentieth Century New Testament
(17) "I EXISTED" - New Living Translation (NLT)
Additional (found in an on-line post):
The Living New Testament:
"The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born."
The 20th Century New Testament:
"before Abraham existed I was."
Parker, P.G. Clarified N.T.:
Jesus answered, before Abraham existed, I existed.
Cotton Patch Version (1970):
To this Jesus replied, I existed before Abraham was born.
Good News for the World (1969)
Jesus answer, I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was born.
New Believers Bible, New Living Translation:
"I existed before Abraham was even born."
The New Testament, Kleist and Lilly:
"I am here-and I was before Abraham."
Wakefield, G. N.T. (1795)
Jesus said unto them: Verily verily I say unto you, before Abraham was born, I am He.
The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, Burkitt & The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John, Blake & Briere:
"Before Abraham came to be, I was."
The New Testament Or Rather the New Covenant, Sharpe:
"I was before Abraham was born."
The New Testament, Stage:
"Before Abraham came to be, I was."
The Documents of the New Testament, Wade:
"Before Abraham came into being, I have existed."
Noli, M.F.S. N.T. (1961)
Jesus answered them: Well, well, I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born.
The Concise Gospel and The Acts, Christianson:
"I existed even before Abraham was born."
The Original New Testament, Schonfield: "I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born."
The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version,
Miller: "I existed before there was an Abraham."
Swann, G. N.T. (1947)
Jesus said to them, verily, verily I say unto you, I existed before Abraham was born
International English Version (2001)
"I was alive before Abraham was born"
http://robertangle.com/ruminations/2012/01/john-858-various-english-translations-that-recognize-jesus-did-not-say-i-am/
It's interesting to see that even the paraphrase Bible, the Living Bible (also published as The Word and The Book), which often takes great liberties with the literal text in order to better bring out trinitarian interpretations, denies an " 'I' AM' = God" interpretation for John 8:58. It brings out, instead, the obvious intended meaning of John 8:58 as: "the absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born!" ' not "I was God before Abraham...."
The point is that numerous trinitarian scholars would not ignore a popular 'Jesus is God' proof if it were not in doubt.
Even the oldest English translations do not render this as "I am":
Joh 8:58 Se hælend cwæð to him. ic was [was] ærþam þe abraham was [was] - Anglo-Saxon Gospels, Manuscript 140, Corpus Christi College circa 1000 by Aelfric.
Joh 8:58 Se hælend cwæð; to heom. Ic wæs ær þonne þe abraham wære. - Anglo-Saxon Gospels, Hatton Manuscript 38, Bodleian Library circa 1200 by unknown author.
Old English for “I am” - “Ic (or ‘Ich’) eom.” See John 8:18, 28 for example.
It's a basic part of every Jehovah's Witness' faith that Jesus (who is their King and Savior) was the very first creation by God (Col. 1:15 ASV; Rev. 3:14 ASV; and Prov. 8:22 NIV, JB) and that he then acted as God's workman (Prov. 8:30 ASV, JB, NIV) and made everything else that has come into existence - so God created everything through Jesus (1 Cor. 8:6 and Hebrews 1:2).
Therefore, since God spoke to Jesus in the beginning and said, "Let us make man in our own image" - Gen. 1:26, JB, it's certainly no surprise to find Jesus telling the Jews that he existed before Abraham existed!
Why have these respected trinitarian scholars so translated ego eimi at John 8:58 whereas most of the time they have translated ego eimi as "I am" in other verses? Certainly they know how important this verse (as interpreted by a few trinitarians, at least) is in the catalog of "proofs" of the trinity! Why have they not, therefore, rendered it in a "trinitarian" way?
One reason for this refusal of so many trinitarian scholars to join the ranks of the "I AM" tradition is that the context of John 8:58 simply does not allow for the "Name of God" interpretation.
"I Existed Before Abraham Was Born."
Those Jews had asked how Jesus could have possibly known Abraham who had died nearly 2000 years before. Jesus¡¯ reply was obviously an explanation that he had been in existence even before Abraham had been born and was not merely an explanation of identity.
It is ludicrous to interpret this verse with the understanding that Jesus is using the personal name ("Jehovah") or an exclusive title (such as "Most High" - Luke 6:35; Luke 1:32; Ps. 83:18 ASV, KJV) to identify himself: "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, Jehovah." Or, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, the Most High." So, the immediate context simply does not allow a "title of God" interpretation for the use of ego eimi in this verse![5]
The Jews had angrily implied that Jesus was a liar for claiming to be older than his apparent years. "You're not even 50 years old and yet [you say] you have seen Abraham!" Jesus' most likely response, then, would have been about his age --- his actual existence 1900 years before being born in Bethlehem (so that he actually could have "seen Abraham"). Therefore he would have said: "Before Abraham was even born, I existed."
It would be more appropriate (although still clearly false), in light of the context, to show that the person whom the crowd is trying to identify at John 9:9 is claiming this "title" (ego eimi), for that is his reply to those who were questioning his identity (not his earlier existence) - see John 9:9 in any Interlinear New Testament.
Some other uses of ego eimi which may be found in any interlinear Greek-English New Testament are Matt. 26:22, 25; Acts 22:3; Acts 26:29; Acts 27:23. Also, if you have the Greek Septuagint Bible you might examine these uses of ego eimi: 2 Kings (2 Samuel in Hebrew scriptures) 2:20; 15:26; Is. 6:8.
Another reason for the different renderings of John 8:58 by these trinitarian scholars is based on NT Greek grammar. There are a number of reasons why a present tense verb in NT Greek (such as ego eimi) may be rendered properly in a different tense in English (see Introduction to the Gospel of John in The NIV Study Bible, 1985 ed.). It is difficult to say exactly which reason was used by the various translators of the trinitarian Bibles quoted above. However, it appears that the highly respected trinitarian scholar Dr. James Moffatt may have translated in accordance with the reason cited by the Watchtower Society in its footnote to John 8:58 in the 1969 edition of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures: "(ego eimi) [is] after the a'orist infinitive clause ['before Abraham to become'] and hence properly rendered in the perfect tense ['I have been']." - Also see subheading "Perfect Indefinite Tense" below. Moffatt also renders ego eimi at John 8:58 in the perfect tense: "I have existed."
Elijah Daniels
Romans9:5 demystified
6. Ro. 9:5
The final example in this study, while not strictly a "speaker-confusion" trick, is so closely related that it will be included in that category anyway. It is really a confusion of subjects rather than speakers that we find in some trinitarian interpretations of this scripture.
Ro. 9:5 - " ... Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." - KJV.
This is the scripture that A Catholic Dictionary calls
"the strongest statement of Christ's divinity in St. Paul, and, indeed, in the N[ew] T[estament]."
The Jerusalem Bible (Roman Catholic) renders it, like the equally trinitarian KJV, in such a way as to make Christ appear to be God: "Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed! Amen."
And the very trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, 1985, in a note for Ro. 9:5, calls it:
"One of the clearest statements of the deity of Jesus Christ found in the entire NT, assuming the accuracy of the translation (see NIV text note)."
Highly-regarded trinitarian NT scholar, F. F. Bruce writes concerning Ro. 9:5:
"God who is over all be blessed for ever. The relation of these words to those which precede is disputed. RSV takes them as an independent ascription of praise to God, prompted by the mention of God's crowning his many blessings on Israel by sending them the Messiah (similarly NEB, GNB)."
Bruce then gives reasons for and against such an understanding and concludes with:
"It is, on the other hand, impermissible to charge [accuse] those who prefer to treat the words as an independent doxology with Christological unorthodoxy. The words can indeed be so treated, and the decision about their construction involves a delicate assessment of the balance of probability this way and that." – p. 176, The Letter of Paul to the Romans, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Revised Ed., Eerdmans Publ., 1985.
However, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology is forced to acknowledge that even if such a trinitarian rendering of the Greek were accurate,
"Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as being of divine nature [see the DEF study.], for the word theos has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology [praise] directed to God." - Vol. 2, p. 80, 1986.
Trinitarian scholar John L. McKenzie also admits:
"Paul's normal usage is to restrict the noun [`God'] to designate the Father (cf 1 Co 8:6), and in Rm 9:5 it is very probable that the concluding words are a doxology, `Blessed is the God who is above all.'" – p. 318, Dictionary of the Bible, Macmillan Publ., 1979 printing.
The trinitarian United Bible Societies (UBS) makes the same admission:
"In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was considered tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ's greatness by calling him `God blessed for ever'." And, "Nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate ho christos [`the Christ'] as theos [`God' or `god']." - p. 522, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.
The UBS has therefore punctuated their NT Greek text in such a way as to show the separateness of Christ and God at Ro. 9:5.
We also find in the trinitarian The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Vol. two, p. 659): “I agree with those who would put a colon or a period at σάρκα [sarka - ‘flesh’], and make the words that follow refer not to Christ but to the Father.”
Even A Catholic Dictionary admits the possibility that the scripture in question is really a doxology directed to God and not to Jesus:
"There is no reason in grammar or in the context which forbids us to translate `God, who is over all, be blessed for ever, Amen.'"
And this statement is from the very same trinitarian reference work that calls Ro. 9:5 "the strongest statement of Christ's divinity" in the entire New Testament!! If this is the "strongest" such statement, where does that put the rest of the trinity "proof"?
Illustrating the high probability that the last part of Romans 9:5 is directed as a doxology to the Father, not to Jesus, are these translations of Ro. 9:5 found in trinitarian Bibles where the statement in question is not directed to Jesus:
The Revised Standard Version (RSV), 1971 ed. - "... of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen." - See p. 165, So Many Versions? (SMV), Zondervan, 1983.
The New American Bible (NAB), 1970 ed. - "... from them [Israelites] came the Messiah (I speak of his human origins). Blessed forever be God who is over all!"
The New American Bible (NAB), 1991 ed. - "[From the Israelites], according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever, Amen."
The New English Bible (NEB), 1961 ed. - "... from them, in natural descent, sprang the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever!"
Revised English Bible (REB), 1989 ed. - "... from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever!"
An American Translation (AT), 1975 printing - "... and from them physically Christ came - God who is over all be blessed for ever!"
Today's English Version (TEV), 1976 ed. - "Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all, be praised forever!"
The Living Bible (LB) - "...Christ was one of you ... he who now rules over all things. Praise God forever!" - Tyndale House Publishers, 1971.
The Bible, A New Translation, (Mo) by Dr. James Moffatt, 1954 - "[From the Israelites] (so far as natural descent goes) is the Christ. (Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all! Amen.)"
New Life Version (NLV) - "Christ himself was born of flesh from this family and He is over all things. May God be honored and thanked forever." - Victor Books, 1993.
Not only can Ro. 9:5 be interpreted as having two different statements about two different subjects (1. Jesus came to earth as an Israelite, and, 2. Bless God who is over all.), but that is almost certainly the meaning intended by Paul (compare Ro. 15:5, 6; Ro. 16:27; 2 Cor. 1:3; Gal. 1:3-5; Eph. 1:3; 1 Tim. 1:16, 17).
Why, even the NIVSB, which called Ro. 9:5 "One of the clearest statements of the deity of Jesus Christ found in the entire NT" (see above), also gave the following in a footnote for Ro. 9:5 as proper alternate translations of this verse:
"Or Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised! Or Christ. God who is over all be forever praised!"
But some trinitarians have, instead, run these two separate statements of Jesus and God together in such a way as to give the impression that they both refer to the same subject: Jesus. The technique is identical with that of the "speaker confusion trick" we have been examining, and neither is acceptable as proper evidence for a "Jesus is God" faith!
[Added 4/2011 thanks to ‘Yahoel’ : “The use of the word eulogetos, ‘blessed,’ which never occurs in the New Testament in reference to Christ. If we refer eulogetos to God, our passage [Ro. 9:5] accords with the doxologies Rom. i. 25; 2 Cor. i. 3; xi. 31; and Eph. i. 3. …. [This] strongly favors the reference of the eulogetos to God. It alone seems to me most decisive.” (pp. 361-362) - Ezra Abbot, The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel. (emphasis added.)]
Posted by Elijah Daniels
1John5:20 demystified.
1 John 5:20 "We are in him that is true, even in his Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." - KJV.
t is obvious that grammatically the word "this" (outos) could be referring to either the Father or Jesus in this particular scripture (see the footnote for 1 John 5:20 in the very trinitarian NIV Study Bible). But the fact that the true God (or "the true One") has just been identified as the Father of Jesus (1 Jn 5:20, TEV and GNB) makes it highly probable that "this is the true God" refers to the Father, not Jesus. The highly trinitarian NT scholar Murray J. Harris sums up his 13-page analysis of this scripture as follows:
"Although it is certainly possible that outos refers back to Jesus Christ, several converging lines of evidence point to `the true one,' God the Father, as the probable antecedent. This position, outos = God [Father], is held by many commentators, authors of general studies, and significantly, by those grammarians who express an opinion on the matter." - p. 253, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.
Notice how this trinitarian scholar actually admits that the probability is that the Father (not Jesus) is being called the true God here. He even tells us (and cites examples in his footnotes) that New Testament grammarians and commentators (most of them trinitarian, of course) agree!
So this single "proof" that the "true God" is a title for anyone other than the Father alone is not proof at all. The grammar alone merely makes it a possibility. The immediate context makes it highly improbable since (as in all other uses of the term) the true God (or the true one) was just identified as the Father ("We are in the one who is true as we are in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and this is eternal life." - NJB; and "We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we know the true God. We live in union with the true God - in union with his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and this is eternal life." - TEV.).
So the immediate context alone makes it probable that the true God is the Father in this scripture also. As we have seen, if we include the context of all the uses of the `true God,' it is certain that He is the Father alone (whose personal name is Jehovah - Ps. 83:18, Ex. 3:15).
To clinch John's intended meaning at 1 John 5:20, let's look another use of the term: John 17:1, 3, where, again (as in 1 Jn 5:20), he mentions Father, Son, and eternal life.
At John 17:1, 3 Jesus prays to the Father: “Father, .... this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” - New International Version (NIV). Here the Father alone is not only very clearly identified as the only true [alethinos] God, but Jesus Christ is again pointedly and specifically excluded from that identification (“AND Jesus Christ whom you [the only true God] have sent”)!
Notice how this respected trinitarian Bible has rendered John 17:1, 3 - “Father,....This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” - New English Bible (NEB).
So, the title “the true God” does not have to mean that there are no others who may be called “gods” or “a god” in a subordinate but righteous sense. It is, however, an exclusive title for God, the Most High, only true God, Jehovah. And clearly it refers exclusively to the Father! No one else is the God or the True God! (Compare Ps. 86:10; 2 Kings 19:19; Is. 37:16.)
Posted by Elijah Daniels
Robert Bowman's objection to the biblical view of the Holy Spirit demystified.
BOWMAN'S HOLY SPIRIT
Jehovah's Witnesses know that the Bible describes God's holy spirit as a thing, not a person. It was understood by the Bible writers as God's active force. It is the impersonal agent by which God creates, for example. When he deals with man it is often through this force. He uses it to communicate, motivate, see, hear, etc. For obvious reasons trinitarians (who teach that holy spirit is a person who is equally Godwith the Father and Son, and therefore worthy of our worship as God!) do not like this.
Robert Bowman's Why You Should Believe in the Trinity -An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses, December 1993 (7th printing):
The JWs admit that the word spirit can refer to a person. Thus, they recognize that Jehovah is a person; they regard Jesus as a spirit, and also as a person; they hold that the devil and his demons, all evil spirits, are also persons; and they believe that some Christians will be resurrected as spirits and live in heaven as spirit persons.
It must be admitted as possible, then, that "the Holy Spirit" is a person. As we have seen, there is some evidence for this conclusion. Another important line of evidence comes from the fact that the Bible contrasts the Holy Spirit with unholy spirits. There are at least three passages in the New Testament where this contrast is explicit.
In Mark 3:22 the scribes accuse Jesus of casting out demons "by means of the ruler of the demons" (NWT), that is, with the help of the devil. After arguing that it is self-contradictory to say that Satan casts out Satan (vv.23-27), Jesus warns them, "Truly I say to YOU that all things will be forgiven the sons of men, no matter what sins and blasphemies they blasphemously commit. However, whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit has no forgiveness forever, but is guilty of everlasting sin." Mark then adds, "This, because they were saying: `He has an unclean spirit'" (vv. 28-30 NWT).
There are two things here of note. The first is that the Holy Spirit can be blasphemed. This does not by itself prove that the Holy Spirit is a person or that he is God, since, for example, "the word of God" can be blasphemed (Titus 2:5). However, the fact that this is the worst sort of blasphemy that can be committed suggests strongly that the Holy Spirit is God himself. Also, in the parallel passage in Matthew Jesus says that "whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him..." (Matt. 12:32 NWT). Here, speaking against the person of the Son of man is contrasted with speaking against the Holy Spirit, which is considered far worse. The implication is that the Holy Spirit is a divine person. [* See note at end of paper.]
Second, and perhaps even more important, theHoly Spirit is contrasted with an unclean spirit(Mark 3:29-30). That is, to the charge that Jesus had an unclean spirit, Jesus responds that in fact he has a holy spirit - the Holy Spirit, in fact. As the unclean spirits that Jesus cast out were personal entities and not impersonal forces, so also the Holy Spirit by whose power Jesus cast them out was also a person.
Another passage containing a similar contrast is 1 Timothy 4:1, which reads, "But the Spiritexplicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitfulspirits and doctrines of demons" (NASB). The contrast between "the Spirit" and "deceitful spirits" invites the conclusion that "the Spirit" is a person, not a force; and this understanding is reinforced by the fact that "the Spirit" is said to have spoken.
This text so clearly indicates the personhood of the Spirit that the NWT mistranslates it to read, "However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances...." That this is amistranslation can be seen from the fact that the "deceitful spirits" are linked with "doctrines ofdemons," indicating that these "spirits" are actual evil beings and not merely utterances.
Another text where a similar mistranslation of "spirit" occurs is 1 John 4:1-6, where the phrase "inspired expression" is used eight times in place of the simple word "spirit" (pneuma, as in all of the above passages). What makes this significant in this context is that in the previous verse John talks about "the spirit which he gave us" (1 John 3:24 NWT), that is, the Holy Spirit. His point in 1 John 4:1, then, in warning Christians not to "believe every spirit," is that there are counterfeit spirits claiming to be from God but which are really from the devil. This implies that the Spirit whom God has given to every Christian, "the Spirit of truth" (1 John 4:6, cf. John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13), is a personal spirit, just as the demonic "spirit of error" (1 John 4:6). - pp. 117-120.
Whether there is really an intended contrastbetween Holy Spirit and unholy spirit personsmay be arguable in Mark 3:22-30. It certainly is not an intended contrast in Bowman's second scripture (1 Tim. 4:1). And if Bowman's third and final scripture (1 John 4:1-6) can only be understood as speaking of spirit persons as he insists, then this may be a proper example for his point of view. So Bowman has found two (at most) examples that might show a contrast between Holy Spirit and wicked spirit persons: Mk 3:22-30 and 1 Jn 4:1-6.
But with very little effort anyone can find numerous examples of the Holy Spirit being contrasted with or compared to or associated with things. (Also see the HS study paper.)
First, notice this example where Holy Spirit is also contrasted with "a spirit" - "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God" - 1 Cor. 2:12, KJV. TheNIV Study Bible (Zondervan, 1985) tells us in a footnote for 1 Cor. 2:12 that `the spirit of the world' is "the attitude of the sinful nature." Thus Holy Spirit is clearly contrasted here with "the spirit" which is a thing: the inclination toward sinfulness. Respected trinitarian NT Grammarian A. T. Robertson also tells us that "the spirit of the world" in this scripture is athing ("probably a reference to the wisdom of this age in verse 6 [1 Cor. 2:6, KJV]"). - p. 87, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1931.
............................................
Here are a few of the many other instances of the Holy Spirit being compared with or contrasted tothings (let's even limit ourselves to "power" at first):
1. "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." - Lk 1:35, RSV. Not only is Holy Spirit compared to "power" but this is an actual parallelism!
2. "I [Jesus] am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city [Jerusalem] until you are clothed with powerfrom on high." - Luke 24:49, NASB. And just what was this power that the Apostles were to wait in the city for after Jesus' resurrection?
"And gathering [his apostles] together, [Jesus] commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised ...'for ... you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" - Acts 1:4, 5, NASB.
In other words: "Don't leave the city until you are clothed with power, that is, baptized withHoly Spirit."
Not only does Jesus tell them they will bebaptized with Holy Spirit (you can only be baptized with things: water, fire, power, etc.), but he specifically identifies that Holy Spirit aspower!
3. "to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man.... according to thepower that works within us." - Eph. 3:16, 20,NASB. Again power working in Christians is clearly equated with Holy Spirit working within them!
4. A. "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power;
B. how he went about doing good and healingall that were oppressed....
C. both in the country of the Jews and inJerusalem." - Acts 10:38, 39, RSV.
We can easily see how Holy Spirit is compared to or at least strongly associated with power in the first line above (A.). But look at Luke's style of writing here. Instead of the parallelism he used in Luke 1:35 above, he is clearly using the related style wherein the writer first names a thing and then gives the major component within that thing.
For example in line B. above Jesus is said to be "doing good." This is immediately coupled with the major component in the composition of his "doing good": healing.
And in line C. we are told he was doing this good in "the country of the Jews." This is immediately coupled with the major component in the composition of the "country of the Jews":Jerusalem.
And so we can see that in line A., Luke has named the Holy Spirit and (in addition to comparing it to "power") has immediately coupled it with the major component in the very composition of Holy Spirit: power. And of course (like "baptized with") one is "anointedwith" things, not persons.
5. "And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God." - 1 Cor. 2:4, 5, NASB.
Again Spirit is strongly associated with power in verse 4. And in verse 5 Paul tells his readers not to depend on their own wisdom but on the Holy Spirit which he has demonstrated and which is power. He also says that their faith should rest on that power of God (Holy Spirit) - compare 1 Cor. 12:9 - "through the Spirit one receives Faith" -NAB. Cf. MLB, JB, NEB.
6. "I am filled with power - with the Spirit of [Jehovah]" - Micah 3:8, NASB. Cf. RSV; NJB(`strength'); NRSV; NAB (`70); NAB ('91); LB;NIV; AT.
Although very closely related to power, there is a technical distinction here. We could say the Spirit is power (probably the major element of the Spirit). More accurately, however, we should say the Spirit is a force. As the JWs explain it:
" 'Power' is basically the ability orcapacity to act or do things and it can be latent, dormant, or inactively resident in someone or something. `Force,' on the other hand, more specifically describes energyprojected and exerted on persons or things, and may be defined as `an influence that produces or tends to produce motion, or change of motion.' `Power' might be likened to the energy stored in a battery, while `force' could be compared to the electric current flowing from such battery. `Force,' then, more accurately represents the sense of the Hebrew and Greek terms as relating to God's spirit, and this is borne out by a consideration of the Scriptures." - p. 1020, Vol. 2, Insight on theScriptures.
The distinction is not always made, but technically the Spirit is an active force from God with unlimited power as its most distinguishing characteristic.
In the Old Testament (OT) it is clear that the inspired Bible writers intended holy spirit (ruahor ruach in Hebrew) to be understood as an invisible, powerful force from God. Even manytrinitarian scholars will admit that.
For example, The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 269, 1976, admits: "In the OT the Holy Spirit means adivine power..."
And the New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984, pp. 1136,1137, says:
The Encyclopedia Americana tells us:
And the Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, 1985 ed., Vol. 6, p. 22 says:
"The definition that the Holy Spirit was a distinct divine Person equal in substance to the Father and the Son and not subordinate to them came at the Council of Constantinople in AD381...."
Many historians and Bible scholars (most of them trinitarians) freely admit the above truth. For example:
“On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the Spirit as a divine energy or power.” - A Catholic Dictionary.
And An Encyclopedia of Religion agrees:
"In the New Testament there is no direct suggestion of the Trinity. The Spirit is conceived as an impersonalpower by which God effects his will through Christ." - p. 344, Virgilius Ferm, 1945 ed.
Even the trinitarian New Bible Dictionary tells us:
And the respected (and trinitarian) New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology confirms:
"As in earlier Jewish thought,pneuma ['spirit'] denotes that powerwhich man experiences as relating him to the spiritual realm of reality which lies beyond ordinary observation and human control. Within this broad definition pneuma has a fairly wide range of meaning. But by far the most frequent use ofpneuma in the NT (more than 250 times) is as a reference to the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, that powerwhich is most immediately of God as to source and nature." - p. 693.
"The Spirit in the earliest Christian Communities and in Acts. `Holy Spirit' denotes supernatural power, altering, working through, directing the believer .... This is nowhere more clearly evident than in Acts where the Spirit is presented as an almost tangible force, visible if not in itself, certainly in its effects. This power of the Spirit manifests itself in three main areas in Luke's account of the early church [Acts]. (a) The Spirit as a transforming power in conversion. [p. 698] .... (b) The Spirit of prophecy. For the first Christians, the Spirit was most characteristically a divine power manifesting itself in inspired utterance. The same powerthat had inspired David and the prophets in the old age (Acts 1:16; 3:18; 4:25; 28:25) [p. 699] .... (c) The Spirit was evidently experienced as a numinous power pervading the early community ....
"The Spirit in the Pauline Letters. [p. 700] .... It is important to realize that for Paul too the Spirit is a divinepower whose impact upon or entrance into a life is discernible byits effects." - pp. 693-701, Vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.
........................................
"The emergence of Trinitarianspeculations in early church theology led to great difficulties in the article about the Holy Spirit. For the being-as-person of the Holy Spirit, which is evident in the New Testament as divine power ..., could not be clearly grasped.... The Holy Spirit was viewed NOT AS APERSONAL FIGURE BUT RATHER AS A POWER" - The New Encyclopedia Britannica.
Famed trinitarian Church historian Neander notes in his History of Christian Dogma:
Here are a few other equations of holy spirit withthings:
7. The frequent comparison or contrast of the motivation of ‘flesh’ with the motivation of ‘spirit.’
Here are a few:
a) Matt. 26:41/Mk14:38
b) John 3:6
c) Ro. 8:4-13
d) 2 Cor. 7:1
e) Gal. 4:29
f) Gal. 5:17
g) Gal. 6:8
h) 1 Peter 4:6
8. “I baptize you with water for repentance, but...he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” - Matt. 3:11, RSV.
We see not only a contrast with Holy Spirit but also acomparison with Holy Spirit all in the same verse. First, Holy Spirit is contrasted with water (obviously a thingnot a person)! Then it is compared to (or at least strongly associated with) fire (obviously a thing not a person - more closely related to power or energy)! And, of course, again, you “baptize” with a thing not a person!
9. Acts 11:15,16: “The Holy Spirit fell upon them ... John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” - RSV.)
10. “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” - John 3:5, RSV. Again the Spirit is closely associated with a thing!
11. “men of good repute, full of the Spirit and ofwisdom.... They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit....” - Act 6:3, 5, RSV.
“Stephen, full of grace and power” - Acts 6:8, NASB.
“[Stephen] being full of the Holy Spirit” - Acts 7:55,NASB.
Stephen was filled with things: faith, wisdom, grace, and the Spirit (which is again equated with power)!
12. “we serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter [of the Law].” - Ro. 7:6, NASB. Contrasts “Spirit” and “letter” (things)!
13. “If you, bad as you are, know how to give good things [e.g., fish, egg] to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” - Luke 11:13, REB. Compares human fathers givingthings with heavenly Father giving Spirit.
14. “Because three there are bearing witness, the Spirit,and the water, and the blood, and the three are in one.” - 1 John 5:7, 8, literal reading from The ZondervanParallel New Testament in Greek and English.
These three are not only things, but they are “in one”!
Excerpt from my CREEDS study paper concerning 1 Jn 5:8:
15. Let’s also examine Acts 2:17,18 where God poursout [ekxeo, ekxew] from [apo] his Spirit upon all people. This should be clear enough that the Holy Spirit is a thing not a person. However, let’s look at all other uses of ekxeo used in the NT as listed in Young’sExhaustive Concordance.
(Mark 2:22 does not use ekxeo in the best manuscripts.)
John 2:15, “poured out [ekxeo] the coins of the money changers.”
Acts 2:17, 18, God “pours out [ekxeo] from [apo] His Spirit upon all people.”
Acts 2:33, “he has poured out [ekxeo] this (thing) [touto, neut.] which you see.”
Acts 22:20, the blood of Stephen was poured out [ekxeo].
Ro. 3:15, Feet swift to shed (“pour out” - ekxeo) blood.
Titus 3:6, “Holy Spirit which he [God] poured out [ekxeo] upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior” (RSV). [This is also translated by noted trinitarian Beck as “He poured a rich MEASURE of this Spirit on us through Jesus Christ our Savior” (Beck NT)].
Rev. 16:1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 17, pour out [ekxeo] (the contents of) the bowls of the wrath of God. In other words “wrath” was being poured out.
Rev. 16:16, they poured out [ekxeo] the blood of saints and prophets.
Certainly in all other cases ekxeo (“poured out”) refers tothings. It would be unreasonable to insist that this is not the case in Acts 2 (and Titus 3:6) also. We can see that if we pour out something from something, it can mean one of two things. If we said we poured out from ourbowl, for instance, we actually mean we poured from a container which contained some substance (thing). We may have poured some of it or all of it. But if we said we poured out from our wine onto your roast beef, it can only mean that we poured a portion of our wine (out of some container, of course) onto the meat. We would not say we poured from our wine if we had poured it all out.
What was it that God poured out from his Spirit? Well, what did the people receive when God poured out from his Spirit? Acts 2:4, 33 tells us they received holy spirit! If, then, God poured Holy Spirit from his Holy Spirit as described in Acts 2:17, 18, it means he poured out a portion of his Holy Spirit, as rendered in the very trinitarian translations of the New American Bible (1970and 1991 editions ), the New English Bible, and theRevised English Bible. (It is similar to our pouring out some wine from our wine.) So God poured out some of his spirit here, some of it there, but certainly he still kept an infinite supply.
Also see Numbers 11:17, 25. The literal “from the Spirit” here in the inspired Hebrew Bible language (see the trinitarian The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English OldTestament, Zondervan Publ.) also means “a portion” of God’s Spirit was taken from one person and given to others. See these trinitarian translations of Num. 11:17, 25: RSV, NEB, GNB, AT, NAB, JB, NRSV, REB, NJB,Mo, and Byington. Spirit, then, is a thing that may be poured out in portions - you simply do not pour outpersons in measured portions upon other persons!
I’m sure there are many more examples of the close association of Holy Spirit with things, but surely you can see that the very few examples that Bowman managed to find in his attempt to show some kind of connection between the Holy Spirit and persons are pathetic in comparison with the many, better examples of its connection with things.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Now let’s examine Bowman’s charge that the NWT hasmistranslated 1 Tim. 4:1 and 1 Jn 4:1-6. He claims that in 1 Tim. 4:1 (“paying attention to deceitful spirits[pneumasin] and doctrines of demons” - NASB) pneumamust be rendered “spirit” (not “inspired utterance”) because “deceitful spirits” are linked with “doctrines ofdemons.” Implying, I suppose, that it would be inappropriate to equate “things” (“utterances”) with “persons” (“demons”). And since demons are persons, then deceitful spirits must be persons. This is not the case, of course, since persons are clearly compared, contrasted, and equated with things in the Bible (and things are even personified). But in this case he is clearly wrong anyway: the link is actually betweenpneumasin (“inspired expressions” or “spirits”) and“doctrines” (things)!
So, according to Bowman’s reasoning, we would have to use a meaning for pneuma which is a thing to match thethings it is linked with (“spirits” and “doctrines”). This would not be “Spirit” or “spirits” with the meaning of persons!
As for the similarly “mistranslated” 1 John 4:1-3, 6 in theNWT (“inspired expression”), let’s look at some trinitarian Bibles:
“Dear friends, do not believe every inspiredutterance [pneuma], but test the utterances to see whether they come from God.... every inspiredutterance [pneuma] that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in human form comes from God, and every inspired utterance [pneuma]that does not acknowledge Jesus does not come from God” - An American Translation, Smith-Goodspeed.
(Charles B. Williams and Dr. Goodspeed quoted here are both recognized by Bowman as “noted Biblical scholars” - p. 140, JWJCandTGOJ. In fact, on p. 126 ofUnderstanding Jehovah’s Witnesses Bowman states: “Edgar J. Goodspeed was without question one of America’s finest Greek scholars.” He also notes that Goodspeed was a trinitarian Christian - p. 129.)
Surely these trinitarian translators would have used “spirits” if they thought it was a proper translation here!
And compare 2 Thess. 2:2:
“not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by someprophecy [pneuma], report or letter” - NIVSB (a footnote says: “Prophecy. Lit[erally] ‘spirit,’ denoting any inspired revelation.”)
“... some pretended spiritual revelation” - Weymouth.
“... at some oracular utterance [pneuma], or pronouncement or some letter” - New EnglishBible.
“... by any prophetic utterance [pneuma], any pronouncement, or any letter” - Revised English Bible.
“... by any prediction [pneuma] or rumor or any letter” - Jerusalem Bible. Also see LB, TEV, Mo,CBW, and Phillips.
Also see 1 Cor. 14:32 where the literal word “spirits” is understood by respected trinitarian translators and scholars as “gifts of the spirit”; “prophetic inspiration”; etc.
Bowman’s charge of “mistranslation” of pneuma by theNWT at 1 Tim. 4:1 and 1 John 4:1-6 is uncalled for. He may well disagree with it, but that does not make it a mistranslation. And the fact that any trinitarian translator (let alone the highly respected Dr. Goodspeed or Dr. Williams) would be willing to agree with the NWT’srendering here makes it not only a proper rendering but highly likely that it is the correct rendering.
So Bowman’s statement: “This text so clearly indicates the personhood of the Spirit that the NWTmistranslates it to read, ‘... the inspired utterance’” is clearly wrong.
If we wish to point out texts concerning the Holy Spirit which are clearly mistranslated, we should look at the trinitarian translations of Ro. 8:16 in RSV, NASB, NIV,CBW, JB, GNB, etc. They say: “it is the Spirit himselfbearing witness...” when the actual New Testament manuscripts they are “translating” really read, “it is the spirit ITself [auto] ”! - Cf. KJV; AT; Darby; and Webster.
The same mistranslation occurs repeatedly at John 14:17 and also at 1 Cor. 12:4, 11 in many trinitarian Bibles.
We could, therefore, rephrase Bowman’s accusation into a more honest statement: “These texts so clearly indicate the non-personhood of the Spirit that these trinitarian Bibles mistranslate them to read, “himself ....he .... him ....”
..........................................................
note from p. 1
As Bowman notes, one can blaspheme things,including the word of God (Titus 2:5: "word,"KJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB; "message," JB, NJB; AT, GNB, CBW; "Gospel," NEB, REB). This also includes the name of God (James 2:7 b., Rev. 16:9), the dwelling place of God (Rev. 13:6 b: "tabernacle," KJV, NASB; "dwelling," RSV, NRSV, NEB; "tent," JB; "home," Beck).
Since the holy spirit (the impersonal force:power/direction/communication from God) comes directly (and perfectly) from God himself, then, no matter what one does against that holy spirit, it is always equivalent to doing that very thing against God himself. For example, if I spit in disgust on the letter - the impersonal thing providing direction/communication to me - from the king, it will always be understood as equivalent to my spitting on the king himself. If, on the other hand, I spit on a messenger from the king, it might not be considered such a serious offenseIF I were merely expressing a dislike for the person of the messenger himself, not his message from the king.
That is why Matthew 12:32 is so important to our understanding of God, Jesus, and the holy spirit. There Jesus says to his disciples, "Anyone who says something against the Son of Man [which includes the heavenly, glorified Jesus - see f.n. #11 in the HS study] can be forgiven; but whoever says something against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven - now or ever." - TEV, cf.Living Bible; also see Luke 12:10.
Now if the glorified Son of Man were actually a person who is God himself (or "equally God" in any sense), this scripture would not make sense. Anything we spoke against the person of the Son of Man in that case would have to be against the person of God himself and would have to beequivalent (at least) to speaking against the holy spirit! But if Jesus were not God himself (or equal to God) but a different person, someone might speak against him (for something he said or did or the way he looks, etc.) as a person subordinate to God and not be speaking against God.
Therefore, this scripture (and Luke 12:10) shows Jesus is not equal to God and explains that theFather alone (who produces or sends the non-personal force/communication/motivator: holy spirit) is the God we dare not blaspheme. If this were not the proper interpretation, not only would the statement about blasphemies against Christ (as equally "God") being forgiven be nonsensical, but the Most High and Only True God, the Father, would be completely ignored, and the worst blasphemy would be against only "God the Holy Spirit"! This would be completely inconsistent with Jesus' continual glorification and honor of the Father alone!
Also note Matt. 24:36 where
('... no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.' - NASB.)
Here, again, we are being told of the highest persons in all creation, and only one is the highest of them all: the Father. The holy spirit is not even mentioned - - - - Why? Because it isnot a person. It is merely an extension of the Father, his power, or active force. If 'he' wereanother person who was equally God, it would have been blasphemous to ignore 'him' altogether here as Jesus has done. Only the correct knowledge of God can explain such things:
`Father, .... This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.' - Jn 17:1, 3; NEB.)
...............................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)